Question · asked by 1 review
Ledermix (corticosteroid/antibiotic pulp-capping cement) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH): Clinical success (survival free of symptoms) at 24 months
- Population
- Adults with asymptomatic teeth with vital carious pulp exposures
- Intervention
- Ledermix (corticosteroid/antibiotic pulp-capping cement)
- Comparison
- Calcium hydroxide (CH)
- Outcome
- Clinical success (survival free of symptoms) at 24 months
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Ledermix (corticosteroid/antibiotic pulp-capping cement) vs Calcium hydroxide Clinical success (survival free of symptoms) at 24 months · Adults with asymptomatic teeth with vital carious pulp exposures · 24 months Pulp management for caries in adults: maintaining pulp vitality (2007) · Cochrane All outcomes | Shovelton 1971 (Analysis 1.1): 275 teeth followed for 2 years (235 at 6 months, 160 at 12 months, 85 analysed at 24 months). Success rates 50% to 80%. Ledermix and calcium hydroxide had the highest success rates,… | 1 study · 275 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pulp management for caries in adults: maintaining pulp vitality 2007 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2006-03 | Not listed | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Ledermix (corticosteroid/antibiotic pulp-capping cement) vs Glycerrhetinic acid/antibiotic mixture · Adults with asymptomatic teeth with vital carious pulp exposures · 1 review
- Ledermix (corticosteroid/antibiotic pulp-capping cement) vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) · Adults with asymptomatic teeth with vital carious pulp exposures · 1 review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.